AdamT Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Here: http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16577&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Confirms my subjective impression that v1 is producing more contrasty images with less tonal subtlety than beta. Also confirms that certain beta testers have lost whatever shred of objectivity they may once have had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 btw, I don't believe that v1 has a hard-coded bounce limit, or at least not a meaningful one. I've tested it in scenes that required at least 20 bounces and it was showing light. Yeah, it would take an eon to get a clean image at that diffuse depth, but that's Maxwell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I found a little snippet of a post where tom translates a beta D65 emitter preset into V1 terms. It makes a huge difference to know that the efficiency of the beta lights is 125%. I haven't had a chance to try a "real" scene with this new knowledge. This test scene is not scientific, but both scenes are output from Rhinoll (beta and V1 versions). Diffuse material and camera settings are the same. Beta emitters are 100W D65 and V1 emitters are 100W 6500k with 125% efficiency. Much more similar results, but I'm not sure if the nuances are detectable. In the thread you reference, there is talk about tonal range. V1 seems a little harsh in those tests. The focus regarding the apparent inferiority of V1 quality versus beta has always been the materials. I think it is more a function of camera and emitter settings. Regardless, it's not a fault of the user so much as a fundamental change in Maxwell. I am hopeful that there is a way to compensate for it. I've updated the beta image. The V1 image ran for 60 min. The Beta image ran for 70 to try to get noise levels about the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I read all six pages and page one says it all. Good comparison of the fundamental difference between the two. Good work. Some good exchanges. I guess since MVerta admits that beta has a better feel, yet indescribable, it is to an extent, an admission by NL that both versions have pluses and minuses. And because we all have a better idea of the differences, there will not be a mass defection from NL. If anything, it will help improve MWR. I am thankful a practitioner, photography and cg, ran these tests and not a scientist. In looking at the differences between rendertaxi's b. & v1 images, apparently there are other problems as well and somehow it would be helpful to submit a complex project to a similar process or processes, if that is possible. It would be a sort of bug list and, again, MWR and all would benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 It makes a huge difference to know that the efficiency of the beta lights is 125%. So while we were being beaten over the head with the 'physically accurate, no bias or compromises' crap, they had lights burning at more than 100% efficiency--something that is impossible in the physical world? Well that would explain a few thing, now wouldn't it! Fran--thanks for a visually pleasing lighting test. Why look at ugly pictures when you can, just as easily, look at pretty ones? That perforated wall looks so wonderful, and most render engines just can't do that very well. The NL guys may be peddling some expensive snake oil, but its great tasting snake oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Thanks Ernest. But the wall is solid and the emitters are just boxes about an inch off the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jona loewe Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Something that may be interesting to folks is that I found that keeping a low efficiency rate and increasing intensity appears to cause a noisier render. Of the attachments, the noisier had the emitters set to 12.5% efficiency and the wattage at 1000 (the filename has a "w" that stands for "whacked out"). The less-noisy image had the emitters set to 125% efficiency and the wattage at 100. So maybe that's a little something to think about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 Interesting. And the render time was the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Adam, the render time for both images was 60 mins. I forgot to note the samples reached on the 12.5% one. But the 125% achieved SL 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I have to make a correction regarding efficiency. I asked over at the official forum, and was told that "It's how many lumens are emitted per watt. More efficient bulbs put out more lumens for the same amount of watts consumed." So it isn't a percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 ...But it's still strange that two emitters that should put out the same light get different render speeds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now